Warning {This thread is not geared towards any one group. Please don't make this into a Dem v. Rep thread.}

Factcheck.org is not the best reference for information; however, they did bring up something to worry about. Disinformation. How much truth can be found in what we read or see? Forumite The Doctor talked in another thread about corporations attempting to control your environment. We see advertising messages everywhere we walk; thus, we are fed so much information on a daily basis. How much of it is valid? Corporations and politicians try to control the message, but how do we weed through the information to find truth?

We humans tend to marry, date, befriend and talk with people who already agree with us, and hence are less likely to say, "Wait a minute – that's just not true."

Achilles

12-13-2008, 02:39 PM

Factcheck.org is not the best reference for information Says who and why? Better question: What is the best reference and why?
Corporations and politicians try to control the message, but how do we weed through the information to find truth?Critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking)

TriggerGod

12-13-2008, 03:37 PM

Says who and why?
It has the word fact in it.

@topic: I don't really pay attention to commercials and stuff on news shows (except during the last month or two of election year), but when I do pay attention [to products], it always has the same gimmick:
"this is better then all the other [type of product]s out there!" and then there is some [I]paid people that no one important knows saying that said product is best.
This may not be what the topic is about, but its an example. People who make the commercials usually bend/extend/distort the truth about what they are talking about.

Yar-El

12-13-2008, 04:03 PM

Says who and why? Better question: What is the best reference and why?
Critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking)
You present a valid question. My comment was from a opinion of observing the site's name and owner. I observed something from my own experiences, and then I created a conclusion on such exposures. I may see the site as being unfactual; however, someone else may have a different opinion.

You used a Wikipedia link as a means to define a topic. Not everyone views Wikipedia as a valid reference.

Jae Onasi

12-13-2008, 04:07 PM

As long as everyone understands that corporations and politicians for the most part are doing whatever is in their best self-interest (bottom line, political advancement or re-election, etc.), hearing that something is mis- or disinformation should be no surprise. At some point, however, they have to tell enough truths to be taken seriously. If they lied frequently, that eventually would be exposed, as Hot Rod is now discovering.

What I see more often is not out-right lying, but shading the truth a bit, or withholding negative information that would provide a more accurate/realistic view of an event or product, a la Kenobi's 'It's true--from a certain point of view.'

Yar-El

12-13-2008, 04:11 PM

What I see more often is not out-right lying, but shading the truth a bit, or withholding negative information that would provide a more accurate/realistic view of an event or product, a la Kenobi's 'It's true--from a certain point of view.'
You are talking about the use of spin? Politicians or a company uses a false/truth twist in making a statement.

Xpl -
Smoking is bad for your health; however, it causes less deaths than driving drunk.

Achilles

12-13-2008, 04:55 PM

You present a valid question. My comment was from a opinion of observing the site's name and owner. Unfortunately, this doesn't tell me anything. You don't like people named "Annenberg"? :confused:

Link (http://www.factcheck.org/about/) for those that would like to learn firsthand about the "site's name and owner".
I observed something from my own experiences, and then I created a conclusion on such exposures. I may see the site as being unfactual; however, someone else may have a different opinion. If it's a matter of opinion, then the assertion that something is "unfactual" doesn't follow. Facts are facts. That's why they are called "facts". If an opinion doesn't jive with the facts, then that tends to be an indication that there is a problem with the opinion. My 2 cents.
You used a Wikipedia link as a means to define a topic. Not everyone views Wikipedia as a valid reference.:rolleyes:

It's not a reference. It's an introduction.

Yar-El

12-13-2008, 05:32 PM

If it's a matter of opinion, then the assertion that something is "unfactual" doesn't follow. Facts are facts. That's why they are called "facts". If an opinion doesn't jive with the facts, then that tends to be an indication that there is a problem with the opinion. My 2 cents. :rolleyes:
It's not a reference. It's an introduction.
Facts are only truthful when people have faith in their levity. We trust our teachers to teach factual information; however, who said those facts are valid. History books in highschool are trusted to carry accurate knowledge; nevertheless, they are created to biasly promote national pride.

1 + 1 = 2 Why?

Litofsky

12-13-2008, 05:38 PM

Facts are only truthful when people have faith in their levity. We trust our teachers to teach factual information; however, who said those facts are valid. History books in highschool are trusted to carry accurate knowledge; nevertheless, they are created to biasly promote national pride.

1 + 1 = 2 Why?

With all possible respect, I see no point in stating this (due to its obvious nature). Bias is blatantly inserted into everything that we see and hear, and it's up to the person to decipher the information, removing all external opinions and elements in order to objectively judge a piece of information.

At for the poll: politicians lie, but because they do, that doesn't mean that I should automatically disbelieve everything that they say. Rather, I would listen to what they say, and then determine if it has relevance/value or not.

Yar-El

12-13-2008, 05:49 PM

What I see more often is not out-right lying, but shading the truth a bit, or withholding negative information that would provide a more accurate/realistic view of an event or product, a la Kenobi's 'It's true--from a certain point of view.'
I must have missed this line. It is a very true observation. What we consider factually true derives from how we look at a event or statement.

At for the poll: politicians lie, but because they do, that doesn't mean that I should automatically disbelieve everything that they say. Rather, I would listen to what they say, and then determine if it has relevance/value or not.
Something is not taken as fact until the person gives them weight. I agree with you there.

Emperor Devon

12-13-2008, 07:38 PM

Facts are only truthful when people have faith in their levity.

Reading this is destroying my mind.

Jae Onasi

12-13-2008, 07:42 PM

I must have missed this line. It is a very true observation. What we consider factually true derives from how we look at a event or statement.

I wasn't talking about moral relativism there or if a fact is a fact--I was saying that companies and politicians will intentionally state something in a specific way so that it's not quite a lie if you look at it in a very narrow, very specific context.

For example, I had a good friend who we were all pretty sure had AIDS because of how sick he kept getting along with the types of illnesses he got (shingles in someone under 35 is an immune impairment issue) and the type of lifestyle he lived. So, concerned friends that we were, we'd invariably ask him "have you gotten tested for HIV?" and he invariably would say "yes", with the implication that all was well, and we'd all be satisfied. What none of us asked was "did you go pick up the results, and what were they?" because then he would have been stuck telling us "No, I haven't gone to pick up the results." This is the kind of 'truth-shading' that I'm talking about--where a company will present information purposely in such a way that most people will come to a certain conclusion, but not necessarily the correct one.

Or take some of the contact lens studies sponsored by the companies. There are a couple contact lens companies who have produced the newer generation lenses that let a lot of oxygen through and are healthier for the eyes, but they are not terribly comfortable. Did those companies present any of the study data on comfort in their 'educational materials' they gave to doctors? No. They focused on oxygen transmission.

Warning {This thread is not geared towards any one group. Please don't make this into a Dem v. Rep thread.}

Factcheck.org is not the best reference for information; however, they did bring up something to worry about. Disinformation. How much truth can be found in what we read or see? Forumite The Doctor talked in another thread about corporations attempting to control your environment. We see advertising messages everywhere we walk; thus, we are fed so much information on a daily basis. How much of it is valid? Corporations and politicians try to control the message, but how do we weed through the information to find truth?

Smart people do one of two things IMO:
Get as much INDEPENDENT info along with multiple sides of main stream and sort through it. Testing it all out one can come to a fairly reasonable conclusion.
OR
SHUT IT ALL OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (for those days that chewing through the leather straps of your straightjacket just *isn't* worth it)

However what you happened to overlook is how things are NOT included. Omissions and half truths are just as damaging as ones with lies injected into them. Or those twisted.
Not just who/where/what/when/why/how whatever is said, included.

As long as everyone understands that [said entities + more] are doing whatever is in their best self-interest
<snip>
, hearing that something is mis- or disinformation should be no surprise.

THANK YOU. Which is precisely why I am mistrustful, cynical, and grumpy.
I get this seasick feeling when someone starts coming up to me and tries to tell me how everything is, or to tell me how misguided I am, like they have ALL the answers. Or how they attempt to control me with logic traps (fallacious reasoning) or manipulate my emotions with alarmism.

Are you a university teacher by any chance???

At some point, however, they have to tell enough truths to be taken seriously. If they lied frequently, that eventually would be exposed, as Hot Rod is now discovering.

What I see more often is not out-right lying, but shading the truth a bit, or withholding negative information that would provide a more accurate/realistic view of an event or product, a la Kenobi's 'It's true--from a certain point of view.'

Playing with semantics is still playing with semantics, regardless--which I think you'd agree.
Product wise...examples can be found at www.amazing1.com... (I'll go into nitty gritty if you want and can name a few products here if you would like).
Their "price estimations" are sometimes laughable. Which would provide a few nanoseconds of amusement I suppose.

<snip>
Bias is blatantly inserted into everything that we see and hear, and it's up to the person to decipher the information, removing all external opinions and elements in order to objectively judge a piece of information.
At for the poll: politicians lie, but because they do, that doesn't mean that I should automatically disbelieve everything that they say. Rather, I would listen to what they say, and then determine if it has relevance/value or not.

That's what objectivity is all about.
To go one better: I'm still trying to wrap my head around Miyamoto Musashi's "mind-no mind" in the book of five rings.

I wasn't talking about moral relativism there or if a fact is a fact--I was saying that companies and politicians will intentionally state something in a specific way so that it's not quite a lie if you look at it in a very narrow, very specific context.

For example, I had a good friend who we were all pretty sure had AIDS because of how sick he kept getting along with the types of illnesses he got (shingles in someone under 35 is an immune impairment issue) and the type of lifestyle he lived. So, concerned friends that we were, we'd invariably ask him "have you gotten tested for HIV?" and he invariably would say "yes", with the implication that all was well, and we'd all be satisfied. What none of us asked was "did you go pick up the results, and what were they?" because then he would have been stuck telling us "No, I haven't gone to pick up the results." This is the kind of 'truth-shading' that I'm talking about--where a company will present information purposely in such a way that most people will come to a certain conclusion, but not necessarily the correct one.

I think this should only be tolerated so much. If genocide results, I'd say that the warranty is out on the lives of those responsible and sepleku (or equivalent) is the only honorable end they have. But that is just me.

Or take some of the contact lens studies sponsored by the companies. There are a couple contact lens companies who have produced the newer generation lenses that let a lot of oxygen through and are healthier for the eyes, but they are not terribly comfortable. Did those companies present any of the study data on comfort in their 'educational materials' they gave to doctors? No. They focused on oxygen transmission.

Maybe you could confirm this, but, is it true that a russian scientist came here in the '60s to learn about laser technology and include it in his research for eye surgery? I overheard an opthomologist recounting how the doctor had not only developed the surgery, but also made it so glasses weren't necessary afterwards. He knew of the students who went to study from the russian a decade after his visit to America. The students were funded by a glasses optics company...You can probably guess which part of the surgery was omitted from their studies.